The dedicated Ideas area was removed because we found that a lot of other threads had suggestions in them too and fit in a lot of other places, and often times, one request thread has many requests in it. The Community team here reads every thread anyway, and we make sure to pass on any of the ideas on to other teams as we see them. No need for a dedicated section, we handle the data aggregation on our end.



I've been watching this thread since the creation and have been talking with the player team about this request or question (whichever you'd like to call it). They are looking into the CONNECT output, but I don't have any details on that I can share. I'll let you all know if there's anything to bring up.



I was referring to what Sonos had in place in parallel to the old Forum, where suggestions for new features were logged in with formal responses from Sonos to each - under consideration, under implementation, not being considered at present - on those lines, as far as I can recall. Is that what you meant when you refer to "dedicated ideas area"?



And your assurance that every thread is read and all ideas passed on ought to reassure those that think that their requests for Hi Res, Audiophile Connect and MQA are being prevented from reaching Sonos. Given the very short shelf life of every post here, perhaps a general message of reassurance on these lines ought to be conferred permanence in some way via a sticky - assuming of course that people read those.



I look forward to the OP reaction to your response on the bit perfect thing.

---

I was referring to what Sonos had in place in parallel to the old Forum, where suggestions for new features were logged in with formal responses from Sonos to each - under consideration, under implementation, not being considered at present - on those lines, as far as I can recall. Is that what you meant when you refer to "dedicated ideas area"?



I spoke in general terms because on ask.sonos.com we had Ideas which were as you said, categorized into statuses, and as Majik mentioned, there was the Sound Ideas board on forums.sonos.com. The statuses left a lot to be desired and when we moved to this new platform we didn't carry them over.

---

I just managed to get hold of a pre-2011 Connect (ZD90) in perfect working order. Happy camper here! If Sonos doesn't solve this, I guess those connect units might become more expensive on the second hand market as the issue becomes more widely known (so far I've yet to read about it on any of the audiophile websites). So I'm happy I got one now. Will install it in my system in a few days.



Btw, I've done some more listening tests, where I compare the sound from my connect-fed monitors+sub to the sound from my Sennheisers. It seems to me that the biggest audible change is about volume normalization between tracks. The compression of peaks CAN be audible on some tracks, but it's still relatively subtle. What is not subtle, however, is what happens when I play full orchestral pieces where some of the tracks/movements are much more loud and explosive than the rest. Much of this between-tracks dynamics gets lost with the volume normalization applied. And according to the information from Ryan from Sonos here in the forum, this volume normalization is not applied to the pre-2011 Connects.



I do realize that I'm in the clear minority here - as a person who listens critically to very dynamic classical music, and who possesses a system that is actually able to do justice to such dynamics. What I perceive as a problem, will not be a problem for 99 percent of sonos users. It might even be that this volume normalization makes life easier for most people out there. I don't know. Still, I would have liked Sonos to cater to people like me as well, and I'll watch over this new/old connect as if my life depended on it 😉

---

Can someone explain the hardware difference between the ZP90 and the Connect? Might there be a simple modification on the connect to bring it back to the ZP90 standards?

---

Functionality wise I don't think there is any difference. But ZD90s and Connects from before 2011 ran on a slightly different hardware. My understanding is that because of this, Sonos can't implement the same DSP and volume normalization in the older connects as in the new ones. So no, you can't modify the new ones. The only solution for the new ones is if Sonos makes a change in the software.

---

That the Connect has more capable hardware than the zp90 ought to be a given. Why then can the Connect not do the bit perfect thing and the volume normalisation thing is a mystery to me. Also a mystery is why, if both aren't possible, Sonos prefers to offer volume normalisation over bit perfect.



Unless, not having ever specified "bit perfect", there was no need for them to stay with that if they think that normalisation is of more value than bit perfect to their target market.



I can't hear any differences between my zp90 and my play 1 units on how effective they are at normalisation, so the point is moot to me. I also prefer the sound quality from my 1 pair + Sub to my zp90 zone, but that is subjective preference, I admit.



The other thing that is easy enough to do, but I doubt anyone will, is even a reduced protocol blind test between zp90 and Connect, to see if there are audible difference between the two once the usual biases that afflict all humans are ruled out. Wiring each to different analog input jacks of the same amp, and supplying the same source to both Sonos units makes it easy to achieve the two conditions that are not always easy to achieve at home: ruling out variability in source and sound levels. Toggling back and forth is also easy to do via the controller app. Perhaps we will see this rare event here soon!

---

The other thing that is easy enough to do, but I doubt anyone will, is even a reduced protocol blind test between zp90 and Connect, to see if there are audible difference between the two once the usual biases that afflict all humans are ruled out. Wiring each to different analog input jacks of the same amp, and supplying the same source to both Sonos units makes it easy to achieve the two conditions that are not always easy to achieve at home: ruling out variability in source and sound levels. Toggling back and forth is also easy to do via the controller app. Perhaps we will see this rare event here soon!



My active monitors only have one analog input... But maybe I'll be able to pull off such a test with a rca switch :)

(and also cable splitters from the source etc)



That being said, I tend to trust objective measurements more than listening tests, which can be fickle. The best ways of identifying differences in blind tests are typically with either speech or pink noise, but we typically tend to listen to music and not pink noise on our stereos. And when listening to music, the brain usually fills in things that might be missing objectively, or that we expect to be there. When comparing two tracks of audio next to each other, the brain can "smear" the listening impression of one track over to the other for example. The very reason that sighted listening is so unreliable also makes blind listening somewhat unreliable. There's no easy way out, and no getting around that our brain and our hearing apparatus are very unreliable instruments.



But if there can be shown to be a measurable degradation within a range that we know is audible to human beings (and not only to bats or dogs for example), then I'll just take that at face value. I just want my system to perform as good as it can within the human hearing range (so I don't care for hi-rez files for example). That's why I employ active monitors without passive crossovers and with very good drivers, have a large subwoofer (bigger bass drivers have less distortion), avoid vinyl like the plague, listen in the near-field, and buy the cheapest cables I can find on eBay. For me it's all about objective performance, and getting as much bang for the bucks as I can. This improves my subjective appreciation of the music. I think its partly because of the objective quality of the sound, and partly related to my smug self-gratulatory satisfaction over knowing that I have good sound ;)



But I'll see if I'll be able to arrange a blind test with the two connects!

---

This improves my subjective appreciation of the music.

Lol. I prefer the short route these days; if it sounds good to me and if I enjoy the music/experience, I don't bother about objective measurements to confirm or in any way validate my experience! Perhaps this is the result of a decade of equipment obsession that I am happy to have left behind.



The blind test would be of interest, one way, or the other to those that are hurting by the loss of bit perfect. But how would they get over the knowing of the loss of bits even if the blind test proves that the loss isn't audible?:D

---

And if you do get around to doing the blind test, remember to also see what, if any, are the differences in normalisation effectiveness between the two units.

---

Lol. I prefer the short route these days; if it sounds good to me and if I enjoy the music/experience, I don't bother about objective measurements to confirm or in any way validate my experience! Perhaps this is the result of a decade of equipment obsession that I am happy to have left behind.





I have never been that kind of an audiophile, perhaps that's why I'm still interested in getting as good sound as I can get, as I've not been dogged down too much by audiohilia nevrosa... After getting my first stereo system it took me exactly two weeks to get over the subjectivist tinkering thing. A salesman convinced me to get some very expensive cables. I took them home, and heard exactly zero difference... So I started to read up on what cables actually did, and realized that I had been scammed. I became so angry that I went back and demanded to get my money back. At first they refused, but when I threatened to sue them for misleading me as a customer, they gave in.



As for now, this new connect unit is the first audio thing I've bought in three years. Prior to that I also had the same system for 8 years, without a single change. When I buy audio stuff, I try to buy durable and sturdy stuff that measure as good as possible, and which fit aesthetically. That's basically it.



Btw, I agree that two play:1s plus sub, equalized with trueplay, is almost laughably good. I have that setup in my kitchen. I do prefer the other setup I have in the salon by some degree, but the sonos setup really is superb.

---

That the Connect has more capable hardware than the zp90 ought to be a given. Why then can the Connect not do the bit perfect thing and the volume normalisation thing is a mystery to me.



No one said it couldn't. It just doesn't because it's not been programmed this way. There's no technical reason I can think of that it couldn't (other than the normal issues of resourcing and timescales).



I have always presumed this was likely to be some sort of error/oversight. It may, of course, have been deliberate, but the ramifications weren't considered. Other possibilities exist.



Also a mystery is why, if both aren't possible, Sonos prefers to offer volume normalisation over bit perfect.



I don't think that both aren't possible. However, not being possible is not the same as not being possible within the current development window, or roadmap, etc.



Unless, not having ever specified "bit perfect", there was no need for them to stay with that if they think that normalisation is of more value than bit perfect to their target market.



Consider that vastly more people will benefit from volume normalisation than from the Connect being bit-perfect. This is especially true on streaming services where the source is far from "bit perfect" in the first place. I would hazard a guess that less than 5% of the music played on Sonos systems across the world is from lossless sources.



I'm not saying getting rid of the option for bit-perfect output is the right thing. Personally I would have kept it as an option (and, maybe, they will in the future).



All assumption/speculation on my part, but offered as food for thought.



Cheers,



Keith

---

Btw, I agree that two play:1s plus sub, equalized with trueplay, is almost laughably good. I have that setup in my kitchen. I do prefer the other setup I have in the salon by some degree, but the sonos setup really is superb.

Something to think about - could that preference also be caused just by the fact that you don't have an objective measurement set for the 1 pair + Sub?! Extending that question further, a 5 pair + Sub, that is physically closer to your AVI set up, also is something that you will never prefer to the AVI only because objective measurements for this also are not available?



Sonos never publishes much by way of detailed specs and there is little out there by way of objective measurements for their kit either, a state of affairs that Sonos and its target market seems to be quite comfortable with. I get that you need these, the questions are just something to ponder:).

---

That the Connect has more capable hardware than the zp90 ought to be a given. Why then can the Connect not do the bit perfect thing and the volume normalisation thing is a mystery to me.



No one said it couldn't. It just doesn't because it's not been programmed this way. There's no technical reason I can think of that it couldn't (other than the normal issues of resourcing and timescales).



I have always presumed this was likely to be some sort of error/oversight. It may, of course, have been deliberate, but the ramifications weren't considered. Other possibilities exist.





I might have misunderstood, but I thought that the bit perfect change was also applied to Connects already sold, via a software upgrade that everyone gets from time to time. If that was the case, how come it was not applied to zp90 as well, if, as you say, that is just as capable as a Connect in being able to accommodate the changed programming? Are you suggesting that not applying the change to the zp90 was also an error, in addition to the error of not considering the ramifications of the bit perfect thing?



And based on what some people here have reported that this change has caused night and day changes in sound quality, it should be very easily audibly noticeable in a zp90 v Connect stand off. Somehow, I doubt that to be the case...something that only a good blind test can decide.



Of course, confirming that there isn't a day/night difference won't need that sophisticated a test - the null hypothesis thing.

---

It's not a night and day difference. That would be a huge exaggeration. Maybe sunny and partly cloudy. I might have even used the term night and day somewhere way back in this thread.



I'd did compare Apple lossless connected digitally to my amp by my Connect, an Auralic Aries Mini and the original CD on an Oppo DV981 also connected digitally. My Peachtree amp has two optical inputs and an AUX input. I could not tell a difference between the Aries and the Oppo, but the clarity of the Connect was obviously degraded. I had to adjust the volume up for the Connect and this made instantaneous comparison impossible. Must have something to do with the volume normalization. Was this THE reason for my perception of clarity? I can't be sure, but I don't think so because my perception of something being wrong started before I started investigating why. I should have removed the normalization tag and tried that, but didn't think of it at the time. So, those who might compare a Connect to a Z90 might want to rip an Apple lossless using something other than iTunes or remove the tag using MP3TAG and see if that makes a difference. iTunes will put the tag in the file even if you have it turned off. The iTunes setting only applies to when you are playing. Apple assumes you might change your mind about volume normalization even if you have it off.

---

I'd did compare Apple lossless connected digitally to my amp by my Connect, an Auralic Aries Mini and the original CD on an Oppo DV981 also connected digitally. My Peachtree amp has two optical inputs and an AUX input. I could not tell a difference between the Aries and the Oppo, but the clarity of the Connect was obviously degraded.

Is this a general statement on the Connect, or is it that the degraded clarity from the Connect you refer to arose after Sonos did their thing to it, and it wasn't the case till then, with the sound on par with the other two sources? And that you noticed this before you came upon this thread - I ask this because some have admitted that to be the case.

---

I'd did compare Apple lossless connected digitally to my amp by my Connect, an Auralic Aries Mini and the original CD on an Oppo DV981 also connected digitally. My Peachtree amp has two optical inputs and an AUX input. I could not tell a difference between the Aries and the Oppo, but the clarity of the Connect was obviously degraded.

Is this a general statement on the Connect, or is it that the degraded clarity from the Connect you refer to arose after Sonos did their thing to it, and it wasn't the case till then, with the sound on par with the other two sources? And that you noticed this before you came upon this thread - I ask this because some have admitted that to be the case.



From 12 days ago when I said:



"The Connect worked fine for me until I moved in September 2015 and did not get my system reconnected until the end of 2015. It was in a smaller room with hard walls instead of the log walls of my house. I tried a lot of things to figure out why it didn't sound "right", quilt on the wall behind the sofa and more. Then I see Peter's post that started this thread. Seeing Sonos staff member Ryan's post saying he had submitted a ticket, I had hope. It never went anywhere. "



It still hasn't. I have. Connect is gone now, after comparing it to the Aries.



People use lots of words to describe how one speaker, CD, or any source of sound differs when compared to another. I used clarity, I could use crisp, maybe a lot more, but that's me. To say the Connect was like tossing a blanket over the speakers would be a bit much, but along those lines. My imperfect ears, but even imperfect ears can detect differences.



I was searching on the site, and everywhere, trying to find out if others had issues and found this thread. The above comparison I made was after giving up that Ryan S would have any influence for an option to bypass the changes that had been made that Peter Mc explained in the post that started this thread.



The only comparison made before was with a CD and my own Apple Lossless file through a Connect optically connected to a system costing about a half million at the Kettering, Ohio dealer that sold me the Connect. I couldn't tell a difference. I think it qualified as a true audiophile system. The silver ribbon cables cost more than I spend on most cars. Took it home and with a Marantz amp and my Belle Klipches I had owed since 1976 (reluctantly sold for about what I paid for them due to the upcoming condo move and replaced with a pair of Dynaudio 1.8 Mk II speakers sold to me by friend) it sounded great, and with the Dynaudio speakers too, but I couldn't "entertain" the entire neighborhood.

---

The "tubes (valves) sound better" audiophiles should love this soft knee limiting, as it's the same thing tubes do when approaching maximum power output. I remember when NAD marketed their "soft clipping", which is also the same thing. The audiophile press loved it. I had one, the circuit failed. Simple to fix, as it was just a resistor and 4 diodes, lol.



http://sound.whsites.net/articles/soft-clip.htm

---

The "tubes (valves) sound better" audiophiles should love this soft knee limiting, as it's the same thing tubes do when approaching maximum power output. I remember when NAD marketed their "soft clipping", which is also the same thing. The audiophile press loved it. I had one, the circuit failed. Simple to fix, as it was just a resistor and 4 diodes, lol.



http://sound.whsites.net/articles/soft-clip.htm



No one was ever accused of inaccuracy when overestimating the hypocrisy of the audiophile press. Now excuse me while I try to get the "orange peel" sound out of my amplifier. :8

---

I might have misunderstood, but I thought that the bit perfect change was also applied to Connects already sold, via a software upgrade that everyone gets from time to time.



Yes, it would have been, subject to the hardware being capable.

If that was the case, how come it was not applied to zp90 as well,

Because the ZP90 clearly doesn't have the capability.

if, as you say, that is just as capable as a Connect in being able to accommodate the changed programming?

I didn't say that at all.



I only said I saw no reason why recent Connect units could not support both "bit-perfect" and the non-bit-perfect normalisation mode. We know for a fact that the Connect is capable of supporting both modes as both modes have been seen in the field, just not at the same time.

Are you suggesting that not applying the change to the zp90 was also an error, in addition to the error of not considering the ramifications of the bit perfect thing?

No, I simply believe the ZP90 lacks the hardware resources to support this change.



Cheers,



Keith

---

From 12 days ago when I said:



"The Connect worked fine for me until I moved in September 2015 and did not get my system reconnected until the end of 2015. It was in a smaller room with hard walls instead of the log walls of my house. I tried a lot of things to figure out why it didn't sound "right", quilt on the wall behind the sofa and more. Then I see Peter's post that started this thread. Seeing Sonos staff member Ryan's post saying he had submitted a ticket, I had hope. It never went anywhere. "



It still hasn't. I have. Connect is gone now, after comparing it to the Aries.



People use lots of words to describe how one speaker, CD, or any source of sound differs when compared to another. I used clarity, I could use crisp, maybe a lot more, but that's me. To say the Connect was like tossing a blanket over the speakers would be a bit much, but along those lines. My imperfect ears, but even imperfect ears can detect differences.



I was searching on the site, and everywhere, trying to find out if others had issues and found this thread. The above comparison I made was after giving up that Ryan S would have any influence for an option to bypass the changes that had been made that Peter Mc explained in the post that started this thread.



The only comparison made before was with a CD and my own Apple Lossless file through a Connect optically connected to a system costing about a half million at the Kettering, Ohio dealer that sold me the Connect. I couldn't tell a difference. I think it qualified as a true audiophile system. The silver ribbon cables cost more than I spend on most cars. Took it home and with a Marantz amp and my Belle Klipches I had owed since 1976 (reluctantly sold for about what I paid for them due to the upcoming condo move and replaced with a pair of Dynaudio 1.8 Mk II speakers sold to me by friend) it sounded great, and with the Dynaudio speakers too, but I couldn't "entertain" the entire neighborhood.







This is pretty much what brought me here.

I had thought for a while I had an issue with my speakers, Meridian DSP5200s, they are now 10 years old, I know them inside out.

Recently music sounded flat, music I know well. When I say flat I mean lack of dynamic range, now, this is not on every track, I could get into someone like Diana Krall or Leonard Coen for a few weeks and not really notice it, but then on some classical pieces with big dynamic ranges or on a particular dance track I was sent with a massive dynamic range it was sounding 'flat' on my speakers, where as on the iPhone and a pair of £29 Sennheiser in ears it sounded mental.

I thought my speakers were playing up, but then I borrowed a Meridian MS200 (a bit like a connect) so I could test our Roon, all of a sudden my system came back to life.



I didn't even consider that anything had changed on the connect side of things, I just thought that the connect was average at best, hence why I came on the forum, to see if anything else was in the pipeline that maybe was better quality. I then found this thread and posted in it.



Now, if it is a case that the Connect going back to being bit perfect will bring my system back to life I will be a happy bunny.







Is Volume normalisation a good thing?

Can a system that does it on the fly not reduce dynamic range, therefore not alter the actual track itself?

It would be nice if we had an option to turn it on/off, simply allowing the system to disable it when you chose 'fixed output' would be good enough.

---

Is Volume normalisation a good thing?



Yes, based on my understanding of it, which is that normalisation should be a change effected in output levels across the entire dynamic range of a track by moving it in its entirety to the left or right as happens when I move the volume control slider to change volume. Relative differences between low and high should not be altered for this feature to be more than just compression done such that the lows can be heard without the highs going too loud. It ought to just have different songs in a playlist be delivered at the same median sound levels relative to each other, not by just having the loud part of every song pegged at one level across. If one of the songs in the playlist has exceptionally loud highs compared to the rest, it should sound to be so; or, if it sounds the same as all other songs, the lows on that song should go a lot lower than those on other songs.



Since my units are zp90s, I have nothing to say on what route Sonos has taken and on whether their claim that it results in a very subtle change in the sound is valid or not. And of course, it is very unlikely that we will see a ABX test between a zp90 and late model Connect to know more about this.



On the subject of Connect sound quality in general, there is a parallel discussion I was engaged in on another thread with a member that finds a day and night difference between music from Connect via its DAC and when used with a Chord DAC downstream. It is of course possible that his Connect is one of the rare ones that is still bit perfect, but that is probably not the case. It is also very likely that his views will change once he comes across this thread.;)



PS: If what Sonos has done is to reduce dynamic range, how is this different from what the recording industry is accused of doing in the context of "Loudness wars"? Somehow, I doubt that this will found to have been the case when audible results are objectively evaluated.

---

If what Sonos has done is to reduce dynamic range, how is this different from what the recording industry is accused of doing in the context of "Loudness wars"?



Sonos has reduced dynamic range by 1dB; there is no doubt about this as far as the Connect is concerned. And it almost certainly applies to every Sonos speaker as well. They reduce the dynamic range by using a brickwall limiter with no look-ahead, and with zero attack and decay times. If a volume difference of 0.2dB can influence an ABX test (as you often quote), then it is highly possible that a 1dB truncation of the loudest music would also influence such a test.



The weapon of choice in the loudness wars is generally a compressor with attack and decay times chosen to make the sound as transparent as possible. A badly-used compressor is quite audible - you can hear it pumping. Sometimes a limiter is also used at the very end of the processing chain to ensure no clipping, including inter-sample clipping. Again, a suitable attack and decay time is generally chosen to make the limiter sound as transparent as possible. The Sonos gain reduction is achieved using just a brickwall limiter with instant attack and decay (meaning it operates on each sample independently of those around it).



When Sonos applies a limiter, it is in addition to what the recording industry does. It changes the song from the original intention of the artist/mastering engineer.



Note that a compressor reduces the volume of the loudest samples, which then allows the mastering engineer to increase the overall volume without the loudest parts of the music clipping. A limiter just reduces the volume. Of course, then you can turn the volume up yourself :)



I hope this answers your question.



Cheers, Peter.

---

Note that a compressor reduces the volume of the loudest samples, which then allows the mastering engineer to increase the overall volume without the loudest parts of the music clipping. A limiter just reduces the volume. Of course, then you can turn the volume up yourself :)



I hope this answers your question.



Cheers, Peter.

Yes and no! You say just before quoted that Sonos has used a limiter, not a compressor. But in your quote you say that all the limiter does is reduce volume. But if that is the case, it should do so across the board of the dynamic range of the song, if, as you also say, all it takes to counter that is turning up the volume. To then level match against a zp90 for example, I would have to turn up the volume on your Connect, or reduce it on my zp90. Then there will be no reason for an audible difference to exist. Right? Or where is my logic incorrect?

---

And it almost certainly applies to every Sonos speaker as well. They reduce the dynamic range by using a brickwall limiter with no look-ahead, and with zero attack and decay times. If a volume difference of 0.2dB can influence an ABX test (as you often quote), then it is highly possible that a 1dB truncation of the loudest music would also influence such a test.



And on the quoted above, with respect to what you think has been done to every other speaker:

This should result in every speaker, from the 1 to the 5, sounding strangled at the louder end of music with high dynamic range, regardless of the volume control setting on the speaker, compared to every other speaker out there where the source has not been so dealt with.

Why is it that no one anywhere has pointed out this as a specific criticism/drawback of the Sonos play speaker line up? Not even ratty as an example of one who is much more knowledgeable than I, who uses a 5 + Sub set up now, replacing a zp80 + third party active pair/Sub.

To say nothing of those that still swear by the Connect, but only if it has an expensive DAC hanging on its digital output.

---

it is highly possible that a 1dB truncation of the loudest music would also influence such a test.





Or is it the case that this reduction has been applied at the loud end of the dynamic range when the volume control is at the highest end of the scale, as in fully to the right, as well?



If so, is there a volume control level below which this has not been applied? If so, what is that level?

---